Article Source Problems with the Slate article: *Portrays one study as having the weight to reach a full conclusion *Portrays trigger warnings as more harmful than not, against the judgement of...
*Portrays one study as having the weight to reach a full conclusion
*Portrays trigger warnings as more harmful than not, against the judgement of their source material
*Portrays all warnings as equal, even though the point of the source is just to say warnings directly prior to triggering content are potentially useless
*Portrays all trauma as inherently equal, even though the source tweet explicitly divides between diagnosed PTSD, clinical PTSD, and general trauma survivors
*References a NYT article which portrays content warnings for epileptics and trauma survivors as being the same
*Clickbait
Things Slate did right:
*Referenced other studies pointing to the same conclusion
*Highlighted the importance of using trauma survivors in the study
*Discuss the importance of helping trauma survivors through potentially triggering scenarios
Does anybody else feel like these types of subjects are overblown in their importance? The article equates trigger warnings as a form of mental healthcare which is ridiculous. People already...
Does anybody else feel like these types of subjects are overblown in their importance? The article equates trigger warnings as a form of mental healthcare which is ridiculous. People already successfully use trigger warnings for things that are labeled NSFW, NSFL, or even going to a third party such as https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ to understand a piece of information better. Questioning if trigger warnings can be useful is in my opinion already settled.
Having access to metadata about an article, book, or movie to improve someones mental health seems silly to me. Trigger warnings are just information and don't directly interact with the persons problems. How that information is used is more important than if the information is present or not.
In conclusion don't think too hard about trigger warnings, if you're producing or sharing something and it seems to involve concerning content there's no issue in pointing that out. 13 Reasons Why is a show about suicide and graphically depicted it. There's no harm in telling someone that.
I've seen more news articles about trigger warnings (100+?) than I have seen trigger warnings themselves(10+?) According to Google Trends, trigger warnings as a search term spiked just before the...
I've seen more news articles about trigger warnings (100+?) than I have seen trigger warnings themselves(10+?)
According to Google Trends, trigger warnings as a search term spiked just before the 2016 USA elections.
Were trigger warnings really a thing in the real world, outside of Berkley?
Well that is a lively thread! For clarity, I was asking how often folks encounter trigger warnings in face to face interactions. I'm basically wondering if trigger warnings have been politicized...
Well that is a lively thread!
For clarity, I was asking how often folks encounter trigger warnings in face to face interactions.
I'm basically wondering if trigger warnings have been politicized in order to criticize academia, when they are no where near as common in real life as the incessant drum of news articles about them would lead you to believe.
I use them occasionally in real life, but then I work in academia. I also don't phrase it as a trigger warning, and don't know anyone who does anymore. Before I give lectures where I've got slides...
I use them occasionally in real life, but then I work in academia. I also don't phrase it as a trigger warning, and don't know anyone who does anymore. Before I give lectures where I've got slides showing pretty egregious stuff I give them a heads up "content warning" beforehand so they know what to expect. Part of that is because the vast majority of the subject matter I cover is completely innocuous, so showing examples of rape and death threats can come as a bit of a shock.
I've notice the people I follow on YouTube call them "content warnings." I realized they were trigger warnings but then understood that they could either stop somebody with severe trauma from...
I've notice the people I follow on YouTube call them "content warnings." I realized they were trigger warnings but then understood that they could either stop somebody with severe trauma from watching a segment, or prepare somebody for heavy material.
It seems like lightly coded language to call them "content warnings," but it helped change my mind on the topic.
I even wound up rethinking safe spaces a fair amount, but that's a different discussion.
i don't know that i'd call it coded language necessarily, because content warnings are broader in their implication than trigger warnings and they carry a slightly different meaning such that the...
It seems like lightly coded language to call them "content warnings," but it helped change my mind on the topic.
i don't know that i'd call it coded language necessarily, because content warnings are broader in their implication than trigger warnings and they carry a slightly different meaning such that the two aren't totally mutually inclusive. by definition, all trigger warnings are a form of content warning, but not all content warnings are necessarily trigger warnings. (you might content warn but not trigger warn something for having profanity, for example.)
Depends what you classify as a trigger warning. If you mean things literally labelled with "trigger warning," then I've only seen them irl a few times. But in different contexts, their role is...
Depends what you classify as a trigger warning. If you mean things literally labelled with "trigger warning," then I've only seen them irl a few times. But in different contexts, their role is filled by a multitude of other things. If I'm speaking to you face-to-face, I have room to judge how comfortable you are with a certain topic being brought up. Same thing with showing something to a group of people...there's a lot of opportunity to read the room and know your audience. Failing all that, I can say "just so you know, this is some heavy shit" or something like that. Intro cards warning about violence and rating warnings on shows or movies also do the same thing. If any warning about the content of A Thing is a TW, then I encounter them every day. If you need the term "trigger warning" for it to count, then no, because we've had ways to do this same thing that predate that term by a long-ass time.
The internet loses a lot of these opportunities, so that's almost certainly why TWs are most common here. It makes a lot more sense to be explicit about it and have a tag which fills in the gap left by the move to faceless text. I don't know who will see the thing, so I'll just put a brief notice so people can make a choice themselves.
It's my understanding that the politicizing done is an intentional part of an effort to counter social justice activism. As someone who lives in a very liberal/progressive city, I've never heard...
I'm basically wondering if trigger warnings have been politicized in order to criticize academia
For clarity, I was asking how often folks encounter trigger warnings in face to face interactions.
As someone who lives in a very liberal/progressive city, I've never heard someone drop a trigger warning in a face-to-face interaction. Typically when anything's brought up that would fall under a trigger warning, there's a lot of understanding in the scenario that what's about to be discussed is going to be some heavy shit, or it means a lot to the person who is discussing it.
That said, I absolutely use sites like doesthedogdie.com or unconsententingmedia.org whenever I'm about to watch a movie with someone, and warn them about anything that might disturb them.
Article Source
Problems with the Slate article:
*Portrays one study as having the weight to reach a full conclusion
*Portrays trigger warnings as more harmful than not, against the judgement of their source material
*Portrays all warnings as equal, even though the point of the source is just to say warnings directly prior to triggering content are potentially useless
*Portrays all trauma as inherently equal, even though the source tweet explicitly divides between diagnosed PTSD, clinical PTSD, and general trauma survivors
*References a NYT article which portrays content warnings for epileptics and trauma survivors as being the same
*Clickbait
Things Slate did right:
*Referenced other studies pointing to the same conclusion
*Highlighted the importance of using trauma survivors in the study
*Discuss the importance of helping trauma survivors through potentially triggering scenarios
Does anybody else feel like these types of subjects are overblown in their importance? The article equates trigger warnings as a form of mental healthcare which is ridiculous. People already successfully use trigger warnings for things that are labeled NSFW, NSFL, or even going to a third party such as https://www.doesthedogdie.com/ to understand a piece of information better. Questioning if trigger warnings can be useful is in my opinion already settled.
Having access to metadata about an article, book, or movie to improve someones mental health seems silly to me. Trigger warnings are just information and don't directly interact with the persons problems. How that information is used is more important than if the information is present or not.
In conclusion don't think too hard about trigger warnings, if you're producing or sharing something and it seems to involve concerning content there's no issue in pointing that out. 13 Reasons Why is a show about suicide and graphically depicted it. There's no harm in telling someone that.
I've seen more news articles about trigger warnings (100+?) than I have seen trigger warnings themselves(10+?)
According to Google Trends, trigger warnings as a search term spiked just before the 2016 USA elections.
Were trigger warnings really a thing in the real world, outside of Berkley?
Well that is a lively thread!
For clarity, I was asking how often folks encounter trigger warnings in face to face interactions.
I'm basically wondering if trigger warnings have been politicized in order to criticize academia, when they are no where near as common in real life as the incessant drum of news articles about them would lead you to believe.
I use them occasionally in real life, but then I work in academia. I also don't phrase it as a trigger warning, and don't know anyone who does anymore. Before I give lectures where I've got slides showing pretty egregious stuff I give them a heads up "content warning" beforehand so they know what to expect. Part of that is because the vast majority of the subject matter I cover is completely innocuous, so showing examples of rape and death threats can come as a bit of a shock.
I've notice the people I follow on YouTube call them "content warnings." I realized they were trigger warnings but then understood that they could either stop somebody with severe trauma from watching a segment, or prepare somebody for heavy material.
It seems like lightly coded language to call them "content warnings," but it helped change my mind on the topic.
I even wound up rethinking safe spaces a fair amount, but that's a different discussion.
i don't know that i'd call it coded language necessarily, because content warnings are broader in their implication than trigger warnings and they carry a slightly different meaning such that the two aren't totally mutually inclusive. by definition, all trigger warnings are a form of content warning, but not all content warnings are necessarily trigger warnings. (you might content warn but not trigger warn something for having profanity, for example.)
Depends what you classify as a trigger warning. If you mean things literally labelled with "trigger warning," then I've only seen them irl a few times. But in different contexts, their role is filled by a multitude of other things. If I'm speaking to you face-to-face, I have room to judge how comfortable you are with a certain topic being brought up. Same thing with showing something to a group of people...there's a lot of opportunity to read the room and know your audience. Failing all that, I can say "just so you know, this is some heavy shit" or something like that. Intro cards warning about violence and rating warnings on shows or movies also do the same thing. If any warning about the content of A Thing is a TW, then I encounter them every day. If you need the term "trigger warning" for it to count, then no, because we've had ways to do this same thing that predate that term by a long-ass time.
The internet loses a lot of these opportunities, so that's almost certainly why TWs are most common here. It makes a lot more sense to be explicit about it and have a tag which fills in the gap left by the move to faceless text. I don't know who will see the thing, so I'll just put a brief notice so people can make a choice themselves.
It's my understanding that the politicizing done is an intentional part of an effort to counter social justice activism.
As someone who lives in a very liberal/progressive city, I've never heard someone drop a trigger warning in a face-to-face interaction. Typically when anything's brought up that would fall under a trigger warning, there's a lot of understanding in the scenario that what's about to be discussed is going to be some heavy shit, or it means a lot to the person who is discussing it.
That said, I absolutely use sites like doesthedogdie.com or unconsententingmedia.org whenever I'm about to watch a movie with someone, and warn them about anything that might disturb them.